Discussion Thread: Introduce a written constitution

This is an archived discussion thread for the "Introduce a written constitution" voting page. Voting, and this discussion thread, have now closed. 

lozhensel 1 month ago

1 person liked this.
This is vital, but needs to be as clear as possible. There must be an absolute minimum of loopholes or it is worthless.

Margaret Short 1 month ago

5 people liked this.
I am in favour of a written constitution but because of the manner in which Parliament and the political class of all three parties, and in particular their Party Leaders, have handled the issues of their own salaries, expenses and policing of parliamentary conduct and the creation of the democratically unaccountable IPSA at huge additional public expense because a large number of members preferred not to behave with honesty and integrity and used House officials to conceal from the public what had been going on for years, I wouldn't trust very many of those currently sitting in the House to write a shopping list let alone a Written Constitution. I thoroughly recommend a reading of the "Unspoken Constitution" recently produced by Democratic Audit to get an idea of the scope of the problem.

MichaelBrett 1 month ago in reply to Margaret Short

1 person liked this.
I am absolutely certain, Ms Short, that a written Constitution would have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the pay or expenses of Parliament, and only make policing it more confusing.

dominicwindram 1 month ago

awilliams66 and 5 more liked this.
A written constitution is absolutely fundamental to any effective democracy. Hopefully it could lead to a bill of rights. It's high time this change was made. It is a disgrace that we are still bound to archaic laws which are an anachronism in the 21st century

Margaret Short 1 month ago in reply to dominicwindram
 
awilliams66 and 4 more liked this.
That is the point. A Bill of Rights written by the current political class would be rather like the Barons having asked King John to write the Magna Carta.

MichaelBrett 1 month ago in reply to dominicwindram

1 person liked this.
"archaic laws"? Care to name any?

And we don't live in a democracy, but in a constitutional monarchy. I think, in the context of discussing a written constitution, those people discussing it should have a basic understanding of the constitution as it stands at present.

Dominic 1 month ago in reply to MichaelBrett
 
awilliams66 and 3 more liked this.
Excuse me Michael. As a republican I don't believe in a constitutional monarchy. I do have an understanding of the constitution as it stands as present.It seems to me that an 'unwritten' constitution is basically a set of laws or fictions developed from notions of monarchical rule. It disguises the fact that is neither, popular, representative nor accountable through a series of myths about the ' Mother of Parliaments'; ' Magna Carter' and the rule of law. The so called sovereignty of pariament has a ring of 'democracy about it, however, legally this 'sovereignty' is vested in the Crown of Parliament. Consequently, it is in the hands of the Prime Minister and government within Parliament. This enables the political elite to combine executive and legislative power to keep the judges in their place. The point, however, is that I would like to see it changed. Do you? Would you like to consider yourself a citizen rather than a subject?

Vee 1 month ago
 
1 person liked this.
A "British" constitution may suit the Unionists but cannot see it helping those who want an independent Scotland.

Margaret Short 1 month ago in reply to Vee
I understand that "Justice" held a seminar in 08/09 attended by Welsh, NI and Scottish delegates and the end result was that none of them wanted an "English" Bill of Rights foisted on them. The three main political parties were all aware of the outcome but even as recently as November last year all were still suggesting that a Bill of Rights was a matter of all party agreement. Suggest you contact Justice to ask for more details of what took place at the Seminar. I am in favour of a United Kingdom given that the size of this island plus NI is not much bigger than California.

MichaelBrett 1 month ago in reply to Vee

2 people liked this.
And those who want an independent Scotland - how are they doing now that their little economic demi-god, Iceland, has fallen so deeply into debt and depravity that it is now a pariah?

I think it is quite obvious that it would be impossible to have a constitution that bound both England and Scotland as the two are separate constitutional entities under the current British constitution, the inherently flexible nature of which allows Scotland a great degree of independence, whilst allowing it to still be connected to the umbilical cord of taxes and prestige that is the Union. The current constitution is the perfect arrangement to allow a preservation of the Union and the existence of a wide variety of situations between the Home Nations.

jamesware 1 month ago in reply to Vee

1 person liked this.
It oculd if it had a clear and unambiguous right and process to seced for Wales, Scotland and Ulster that can be argued for an against at a referenda. Salmond and Wyn Jones are many things but agent provocateurs for terrorism like De Valera of a 100 years ago is not one of them.

John Macleod 1 month ago

3 people liked this.
I am uneasy about our political structures and about the extent to which we can trust those who operate them. I know that that is a very grave remark to make but, without being able to give specifics at present, I feel that the conventions which regulate the way the Executive & the Legislature work together have been abused by the Government. I feel that our political leaders have paid insufficient attention to the liberal culture of this land, particularly in the context of the anti terrorism legislation which has been enacted.

Detention without trial, ID cards, Government gathering of all private emails, telephone calls & so on. Soon we will have trackers built into our cars so that someone somewhere will know where we are & have been every time we drive. It would be much simpler if the Government just did what it knows it wants to do, have us all chipped. Crossing borders, airline security? Not a problem. Fair enough, you may laugh, but the process of herding us has only just started, you watch.

I am not sure to what extent we can trust our politicians.

For all of these things and more, I feel we need a written constitution to protect the rights of the citizen, to establish the obligations of the same and also provide us with a vehicle in which can be stated the basic norms under which the executive, legislature and judiciary operate. Included in this might be the arrangements for the governance of each of the home nations, their relationship to each other and also to the British State and the European Union. Something rather like "cascading" federalism, I suppose.

claphamomnibus 1 month ago
 
bonthron and 12 more liked this.
It is abundantly clear from recent events that the citizens of this country need to be protected from the excesses of government in particular the present one who have passed a succession of ill thought out legislation which has been misused by local and central government bodies. The basis of originally Magna Carta and subsequently the 1688 Bill of Rights was to set out clearly the basis upon which the government would govern and we the citizens agree to be governed. After 320 years these rights may well need updating but they should be enshrined in a written constitution which cannot be altered or amended other than by a referendum. What has become very clear over the last 10 years is that the citizens need to be protected against the executive. If individual freedom and liberty is to mean anything then government requires a "light touch" not as at present constant interference in the way the citizen chooses to lead his or her life. Therefore if the rights gained over many years of struggle are not to be taken away upon the grounds of so called expediency then a curb needs to be placed upon Parliament and a written constitution is the way to do this.

Alan F Stevenson 1 month ago

2 people liked this.
Without the abolition of capitalism, a constitution would actually further obscure the power structures because it wouldn't mention the power of the corporations. And 'patriotism' is rarely a positive thing. I would, however, support the drafting of a constitution so long as it was led from the grassroots and not just laid out by politicians to take or leave.

cornubian 1 month ago
Yes a written constitution, but I have no idea how you would codify the relationship of the Duchy of Cornwall to the state. 

Duchy or County - how would a modern Magna Carta look in Cornwall?http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/2008/02...

harrystarks 1 month ago

7 people liked this.
I favour a written constitution but not one that simply writes up what we have at present.
I want an end to the archaic rule that the reigning monarch is at the apex of state power structures.
It is laughable that in the twenty first century an unelected monarch still invites an elected politician to form a government. 
Let the person who has that power be directly elected by the people to whom he or she must be accountable

Margaret Short 1 month ago in reply to harrystarks

2 people liked this.
I see where you are coming from Harry, but it didn't help the USA citizens too much to have a written constitution and a President like George W Bush and VP like Dick Cheney.

Will 5 hours ago in reply to Margaret Short
 
1 person liked this.
While I agree with you on one part - that Bush and Cheney trod on the US Constitution, the inability of the US Congress and Reps House to do anything thing, through will or ineptitude is worse. 

It is they who can bring about the arrest and trial of both Cheney and Bush - Obama could pardon them, but that would be political suicide on his part. 

Part of that written Constitution should be a little bit about how any representative of the people who did become PM and then shat on it would be tried for that. As the Constitution should be about the people, the citizenry - not about high office and those who finance and kissass whom should live in No 10.

MichaelBrett 1 month ago in reply to harrystarks
 
2 people liked this.
How is it laughable? I am fascinated. For to me it is quite apparent that by the pledge that the sovereign exacts from the income Prime Minister to serve Her, and therefore the country, to the best of his abilities and intentions, this man, who has reached that position by massaging public opinion, by telling people what they want to hear, and in the meantime running a personal agenda, is reminded that there is an authority higher than popularity and celebrity; that is - the law, and the national as a whole, embodied in the person of the sovereign. 

Mr Starks, you show a peculiar misunderstanding of this country - that the Sovereign is in no way accountable to -Her- people, and rather the contrary. The stability that a monarchy guarantees is priceless, and has been and still is an enormous factor in Britain's success as a nation.

cornubian 1 month ago in reply to MichaelBrett
Britain (in fact you mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is not a nation. It's is a gathering of nations.

Steve 3 hours ago in reply to cornubian
It's the original European Union.

Perhaps.

simonprice 1 month ago

7 people liked this.
The UK constitution is a mess with power held centrally diluted down to citizens via several routes. The second chamber is a mishmash, peerages virtually sold. The voting system a nightmare a dutch auction of two parties. The regions have some powers but still send MP's to London.I would suggest the following. A fully elected second chamber. Devolved power and cash to councils/regions [would we be fighting in two wars if your local council had to send the money]? A parliament for England.

bonthron 1 month ago
 
1 person liked this.
This is essential,otherwise governments can "decide" for whatever reason "in the name of National security"to do away with citizen's rights,ie shut people up.
The problem is once the "lawyers get their teeth into this we could be waiting 20 years for a "final "draft.Therefore a impartial committee made up from academics, in all fields, should have the task of looking at those written constitutions from established democracies, places like Scandinavia, Germany,(probably one of the most recent,1948 I believe)and including constitutions of USA, France,Netherlands and ROI and producing a draft from the best "bits".This is unlikely to be perfect but it will provide a basis to hone a lasting Constitution, as has happened in most democracies.The imperfect draft should be given a referendum asap.this gets the thing accepted,(Just like we had to with the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution,no referendum on that though. It seemed to be an acceptable way to proceed then, even though less than 10% had any idea what it meant) therefore politicians will not be able to introduce new laws without reference to the constitution.Regarding the thousands of laws which have been introduced over the last 1000 years, those which have immediate relevance should be retained ,those which do not "fit" in with the constitution , (no one to ride a horse through town on a Monday without a hat type laws"should be dumped) the remainder should be looked at by the law lords and either removed or brought up to date .At no extra cost to the taxpayer, after all these people have made a very hansom living arguing the in's and out's of a maggots bottom for the last few hundred years, lets get some value from them. End; John.

MichaelBrett 1 month ago in reply to bonthron
 
1 person liked this.
How sad that you want us to bastardise our ancient Constitution which is the fruit of a millennium of development and learning with bits and pieces from various other countries who were not even in legal existence when Westminster Hall was built, and who owe the great part of their ideals about democracy &c to our Parliament anyway. 

And don't forget that, as a consequence to the Labour constitutional iconoclasm of the last decade, the Law Lords no longer exist.

AlJG 1 month ago in reply to MichaelBrett
 
1 person liked this.
The age of other countries is irrelevant: when a country came into existence tells us nothing about the desirability of its constitution. Other than this: the more recently it came into existence, the more accrued wisdom, borrowing from the experiences of other nations, it might be able to apply to its constitution. Thus producing a more desirable and stable code.

So, for example, America's constitution was late 18th century. Those who drew up this document were able to draw directly upon English democratic advancements (that is, such limited ones as had occurred to that date), the experience of the ancient Roman republic and the principles, such as democracy=dialogue that were established in ancient Athens. It could draw on medieval European statements of nationhood and community such as the 14th century declaration of Arbroath.

Japan's constitution from the late nineteenth century drew upon European models for parliamentary democracy under a sovereign monarch or emperor and it still does.

Borrowing is a good thing. It is not "bastardisation". It is learning. 

Calling it "bastardisation" implies a preference for a purely British product. Presumably you prefer to imagine that the British constitution originated entirely within these shores. That wherever we came up against the water, we stopped, and decided to do it ourselves. 

What crap.

Our language, through which we articulate our political ideas, is half Germanic and half Romantic (roughly). Our model for nation under kingship (like all medieval Europe's) is definitely not British but is based upon that which ancient Israel (under kings like David) established -- and which we copied. 

When the Americans and French set up their republics, they attempted to leave out the bad bits, and take on the good bits. The fact that American democracy took a bash under Bush does not condemn that system. Nothing is perfect. But the fact that they can wipe it out, when it goes wrong, and that everyone on the way to the top is removed (while a stable constitution remains) speaks volumes for it. Britain's model leaves Britain emasculated -- a society whose political structure is doomed to prevent its citizens ever knowing full political maturity. Unless they wipe it out.

In short, Michael, I'd reply to you by saying that borrowing is good. It's not "us" and "them". A lot of those who wrote other country's constitutions were the people who were too smart for Britain at the time -- we are all one.

AlJG 1 month ago in reply to AlJG
Apologies, further to my last post, I must that "what crap" sounds very dismissive. What I meant of course, is that I simply don't agree.

I also disagree with a comment of yours, below, which I shall reply to separately...

MichaelBrett 1 month ago
The idea of a British written Constitution is absolutely alien to the very fabric of The United Kingdom. This proposal contains its own condemnation - "have called into question whether Parliament is indeed still sovereign." I believe that those who propose this are perhaps deliberately ignorant of the role and relationship of the monarchy in our Constitution - that is, the Sovereign is sovereign. The idea of a written Constitution undermines the one thing that binds together the Union, that has assured the integrity and security of the nation from the earliest times, that called the first Parliament in the 13th century - the dignity of the Crown, and its wearer, from whom all judicial, legislative, and excutive authority comes. 

A written Constitution is not needed - we have a Constitution written and made manifest in human flesh. God save the Queen

AlJG 1 month ago in reply to MichaelBrett

1 person liked this.
You are quite right when you say that the Sovereign is sovereign in the UK.

However, in one sense -- that is, potentially -- sovereignty always resides with the people. What this means is that the monarch is in place by virtue of the consent of her subjects. If the people were to throw her off then she would no longer be sovereign.

I suppose that states the obvious. But where I strongly disagree with you is here: you say that for the integrity and security of this nation to continue, the monarch should continue to be sovereign. 

Not so. Final and full dignity is attributable to the individual human being. Ultimate sovereignty rests with the private individual. 

I am not talking about in Britain. I am talking about what it is to be a human being.

I think we can come up with a political arrangement that recognises that, and that shall allow British citizens to enjoy full political responsibility and agency. I also think that, paradoxically, such a constitution (either a republic or similar formulation) would enable us to discover and reflect to the world the true character of ourselves and our society. (Even if we do so by making mistakes). At present, we have not even perceived it, for we are stifled under monarchy.

Stephen Williams 3 weeks ago in reply to MichaelBrett
Federl Republican constitution for Britain, now, it's the only answer.

trevorainsleythomas 2 weeks ago in reply to Stephen Williams

1 person liked this.
federal government what good will that do for us? just imagine gordon brown and his cronies milking the system no thanks, I am not a big fan of the royals, but they do pull in a lot of tourists better the devil you know , I STRONGLY believe in the united kingdom I reject the idea of devolution wether it be scotland,wales ,or northen ireland.we must stand together that is our strenght if we split we become weaker, and our influence in the world becomes less, look we are a small island but through our history we have a wealth of experience other countries have not got our experience but would like to have it, so lets keep it like that, by the way to make sure we keep it don't vote labour,conserative,liberal, plaid cymru, scots nats because they have and will sell this country short vote for a radical party

Guest 1 month ago
If you called this an English Constitution, I would vote for it

alecakehurst 1 month ago
Had you called it an 'English Constitution' I would've voted

martinboothby 1 month ago
 
3 people liked this.
It is abundantly clear, from the way the Labour government has trounced our civil liberties that the notion of an unwritten constitution that represents the people,as opposed to the government, is as wide open to misinterpretation, or deliberate obfuscation as it is possible to be. The Constitution of the United Kingdom should be agreed by referendum, ratified by referendum and put into practice such that there no confusion about how the British people should be treated by successive governments. I did not expect to find myself in my mid-fifties living in a Stasi-ist nation where the "rights" of the minority are more "relevant" than those of the majority, I, funnily enough, expected those times to be gone with the Iron Curtain. 

If I had wished to live in a socialist state, I would have gone elsewhere and would not have pressed my desires and aspirations on people who did not want such. A constitution would have allowed the people of the nation to have applied the brakes long before it had reached the parlous state it has now reached.

davidbarnard 1 month ago
A written constitution should probably be constructed incrementally, starting with top level principles which could then be used to construct the next level for separate areas, to be worked on in parallel.
Quite separately from the above, please note the work done some years ago at (I think) Imperial College at expressing laws in a logic programming language such that their consistency & effects can be checked mechanically. (I don't know where the work ended up.) It is almost impossible to check consistency in laws or rules written in "plain" English, & very hard to predict all the effects.

Quinbus Flestrin 1 month ago
It is also clear that the people need protection from the army of occupation formerly known as police. The de Menezes case was merely one in a long sad list of police perfidies of which they absolved themselves, I do not consent to their policing, nor to their automatic absolution.

trevormagee 1 month ago
 
3 people liked this.
We need to change the status of our selfhood from "subject" to "citizen" and to empower our people with a proper bill of rights which protects them from smug, self-congratulatory politicans who govern by cabal and the "boys club" nepotism witnessed in the expenses farce. A written consitution would be the start of such a process by confering the clearly defined rights of each individual.

cornubian 1 month ago in reply to trevormagee
 
1 person liked this.
Exactly Trevor and one of the best places to start and worst examples of stinking privilege is the inherited Duchy of Cornwall.

A scam which claims to be nothing more than a private landed estate but which in fact is much much more. 

The primary beneficiary being the heir apparent to the Crown, and the primary victim the Cornish people and their cultural identity.

The Duchy of Cornwall Human Rights Association has all the details here:www.duchyofcornwall.eu

RageRuth 1 month ago

3 people liked this.
But many people do have some idea of the archaic and CORRUPT LEGAL SYSTEM IN THE UK, particularly England and Wales, run by CORRUPT and BIASED POLITICISED JUDGES, for and with their CORRUPT AND BIASED Barrister pals, cringing and clining onto form, BUT IGNORING WRITTEN EVIDENCE - INCLUDING PREVIOUS COURT JUDGEMENTS, MADE AFTER A FULL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS!!!!
Right up to the Court of APPEAL!!!
What people also know is that the CIVIL SYSTEM is not for ordinary folk ONLY THE POLITICALLY CORRUPT AND WEALTHY OR FOR CORPORATIONS.
What a disgrace when MANY COUNTY COURT JUDGES cannot use a calculator, nor add 1 plus 1 together to make 2, but insist on relying on FALSE EVIDENCE provided by Solic8itors who also cannot add up nor accurately use a Calculator!!!
I know I worked with them.
WITH ALL THE COURT FEES and the LACK OF AFFORDABLE REPRESENTATION, THE COURT SYSTEM has simply moved from the ordinary Voters' World.
The Legal Fees for a start are a disgrace as are the Court Fees and the lack of interest demonstrated by many of the lower Court Judges.

Oh and the Criminal Systrem - used again in many cases for the Victims of the politiciswed local Police - especially the Thames Valley Police!!!!! Not to catch the real Criminals, the Police Perjurers, the Police Counterfeiters, and so on and the corrupt Judges - ALL SHOULD BE PROSECUTED AND WOULD BE and MAYBE WILL BE IF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS so rule, to where we HAVE HAD TO APPLY!!!!!! FOR JUSTICE.

In case the Contributor who claims people should understand our Legal System has never heard, it is a well known fact in the UK - THAT WE MAY GO TO A COURT OF LAW IN THE UK, BUT UNLIKELY EVER TO BE A COURT OF JUSTICE!!!!!

Richard Orchard 1 month ago
Yes

trevorainsleythomas 1 month ago
 
3 people liked this.
I would like to add direct democracy to a written constitution that would mean the people will make the decision.

Nick H 2 weeks ago in reply to trevorainsleythomas
 
3 people liked this.
Hi, I would love to see on the bottom of the Electoral form an option (As in the film "Brewsters Millions) a none of the above box. Why should a" I don't trust any of them vote" only be possible by NOT voting at all? It would be interesting to see how many people would register as unsatisfied by the whole system. Would it make the politicians look again at how the public really see, or trust the system? "what would happen if the none of them vote" was the winner?

Barbara Flatcher 1 month ago
Benefits described not a necessary consequence of a written constitution.

Ralph Baldwin 1 month ago
 
1 person liked this.
A written Constitution also needs to be renewable, this permits a movement away from errors made in the past by other country's like the US. Every 25 or 50 years the people should once again play some form of role after the original genesis of the idea. That I am afraid is all you get from me at the moment. This permits an element of flexibility and change.

Sarah Greening 1 month ago

4 people liked this.
The American example of a written constitution shows it to be rigid and impossible to modify when circumstances demand. The existing British parliamentary system has served this country well and should be left to correct itself through its own reform processes. A written constitution is not necessary for a country with a long history of democratic custom and practice.

James Cameron 2 weeks ago in reply to Sarah Greening
 
2 people liked this.
I tend to agree Sarah, both the experience of the US - where I have lived and worked for decades, and of Europe - particularly France - with its written constitution(s) shhould give us pause for thought. The Supreme Court in the US has become a massively political agent with Democrats and Republoicans waiting like vultures for one of the old fogies to die so they can appoint "one of their own" and overturn several key decisions. The French have the Code Napoleon and massive problems adapting to changed legal circumstances as the whole basis is that you try to codify everything in advance and inevitably things change. In fact in practice the French just ignore laws they do not like from Brussels whether on aviation, on immigrationm, or anything else. Our slighltly chaotic system incorporating botyh codified law and case law as created by the courts is not perfect by a long way, but I would much rather rely on it than these other systems.

James C

scrutoneer 1 month ago
 
2 people liked this.
Government by "party machine" has certainly undermined the independence of MPs, and their ability to vote with their conscience. The individual citizen has thus lost most of the protection that would have been offered by such independence. It is thus essential that a Written Constitution (Bill of Rights) be constructed to ensure the defence of the individual citizen. 

But where, pray, are we to find a Benjamin Franklin, or a Thomas Jefferson, to oversee the drafting of such a document?

Mrs Pamela Aggett 1 month ago in reply to scrutoneer 

3 people liked this.
The Will of the People can still Triumph
British Law the Standpoint is unequivocal
The Sovereignty of Paliament means that European Union Legislation can apply in this Country only for as long and the extent to which our Parliament allows
EU law only takes precedence over previously passed domestic legislation in the UK
Any new act or ammendment to the 1972 ECA WITH THE WORDING "any provisions of the 1972 ECA NOTWITHSTANDING " must and will be upheld by British Courts
No treaty ever written is Superior to the Will of the People in a SOVEREIGN democratic Nation
No power on earth ,No legal system ever devised can take from the British people the right to 
Repudiate any treaty,especially
if they are greatly disadvantaged by its demands
Those who say we cannot withdraw from parts of the Treatywithout withdrawing from the EU 
ALTOGETHER SHOULD REFLECT THAT FRANCE AND GERMANY consistantly break the growth and Stability pact a Central treaty requirement because they do not like the constraints
This has not led to them excluded from the EU but has triggered a renegotiation of the rules 
Never the less I dont believe any British Fishermen would shed tears if we left the EU for ever 
The claim that we now share Sovereignty other EU states is clearly entirely fictitious
Sovereignty means self Government and self Autonomy not subjugation to a foreign power
A future Sovereign British Government will yet reflect a growing flood tide of anger from the British People in opposition to this Monumental outrage against every principle of democracy that is allowing such never ending misery to be inflicted on the British People

a Guest 1 month ago in reply to scrutoneer
I would never trust that a constitution, that would be very difficult to change, would end up written in the interests of "The People" while our news media, which would be the main platform for ideas and influencing people in any referendum, is entirely corporate and owned by a few right wing business moguls.

XQ76 1 month ago

4 people liked this.
Totally pointless. While we are members of the EU, Parliament has whatever powers the Eurocrats give it. Democracy is meaningless.
Leave tghe EU. There is no more important objective than this.
THEN we candebate how we want to run our country.

caswest 1 month ago in reply to XQ76

1 person liked this.
I agree with XQ76, there is no real democracy now that we have been tied to the EU.

Any one of the leaders of the three main parties would be almost certain to win the next election if they promised to withdraw from the EU, or at least hold a referendum on the matter.
None of them will do this because they all have a vested interest in tying us in with Europe. 

As long as we have a party system running the country nothing will change for the better.
Ony independant representatives, answering to the electorate can sort out the mess we are in.
If we all refuse to vote for anyone representing a particular political party, then change must happen.

B.A.Yates 1 month ago
 
4 people liked this.
Parliament as presently constituted is undemocratic, as a small number of Local Party Members elect a parliamentary candidate. The people in the first instance, should select a prospective candidate from an unattributable Party list of Candidates prior to the final vote for parliament. This method would prevent the unacceptable march of the "Lobby Fodder" we have experienced during the past 10 years. We need attributable government without spin,
We urgently need "Democratic representation " without Party influence. The comming General Election is an ideal opportunity for the Peoples voices to be heard.

rpilkington 1 month ago
 
2 people liked this.
.....and get rid of anyone deluded enough to think they are IMPERIAL and MAJESTIC and ordained by God, over and above mine or anyone elses family. People who dont understand this concept, should get the the counciling they need to counter their inferiority complex or the help of a DNA specialist. I find the concept of Cowmilla Park and Ride being forever superior to my decendants offensive enough to be worthy of bearing arms against. 
So called supporters of monarchy and the present status quo, exist at either end of the political spectrum. Regardless of their sophistry, it all comes down to their fear of actually being recognised in a visible stand against the powerful. Living under the status quo, is subserviance to the powerfull... ask the average inhabitant of France Germany Italy to name a few,if the dont think the social turmoil that was required to rid themself of a mad parasitic familes who wouldnt just quietly 'clear off' into the past. The mindset of people that cause this state to be continued, makes modern day Stonehenge hippy Druids look perfectly mainstream .

Ivor 4 weeks ago

3 people liked this.
This country is in serious danger of anarchy and revolution if the erosion of peoples rights and freedoms continues, and if our own citizens continue to be first to pay for everything but last to be considered. For instance our homeless get turned away by councils. our sick get refused medication and treatment, it's getting impossible to find a doctor or dentist if you are poor, and the NHs is becoming a joke unless you happen to be lord muck or royalty. Then nothing is too much trouble. It is time we protected out rights in law and were able to sue anyone who deliberately breaches ourt rights etc. We need to stop the erosion of our once great country now and respect the millions who died in wars to keep it free. They didnt die to give it away to Europe or anyone else.

RB 4 weeks ago

1 person liked this.
A fair system of voting and survey of opinion should allow votes against specific proposals as well as for them - how else can tyou judge what people's opnions are? I support PR but not a written constitution on the entirely consistent grounds that the one promotes political equality and the other works against it. It seems reasonable that one should be able to register both the posive and the negative

scrutoneer 3 weeks ago

2 people liked this.
Time was when the Common Law ruled our land. It was a record of the way that the best judicial intellects were applied to the conundrums thrown up by the widest possible range of everyday experience. It offered judgements on the most peculiar interactions between, often extremely eccentric, people and their fellow citizens. Above all it offered common men the comfort of knowing that, however difficult the problem posed, a judge would be able to pick his way carefully through a minefield of false arguments to arrive at a judgement which could be made to stand for all time. In such times an Unwritten Constitution, which offered the minimum in the way of unnecessary constraint on the flexible development of our society, was probably the best option. 

However, in these times of badly-drafted Statutes, petty-fogging regulations, bureaucratic diktats and generally intrusive rules, we are in desperate need of protection from our law-makers: we are entitled, after all, to be able to pursue our individual, unique lives. With the greatest reluctance, I have come to the conclusion that we now need a Written Constitution.

The drafting of this document is going to be a mammoth task, with every effort being made to ensure that it conduces to the liberation, rather than the enslavement, of the citizen. Civil servants have now become so used to the "command and control" mode, that it would appear very risky to assign the task to them. One wonders, also, whether the supply of clear-headed academics is sufficient to ensure the production of a document which will stand the test of time.

pchatfield 2 weeks ago in reply to scrutoneer

1 person liked this.
you've hit the nail on the head - I simply don't trust any politician/Government official to draft a new constitution - the standard of drafting is abysmal, let alone how one would agree what it was supposed to say! I rather think we would be agreeing to fabricate our own shackles and a process of evolution via the existing system is the only option.

Dianne 3 weeks ago
I should like to see a written constitution for the U.K. enabling us to become a Republic where the class system does not determine each citizen's life opportunities as I believe is the case under a monarchy. This would open up opportunites to the majority, releasing massive talent and energy in a revived 21st century U.K.

bryanyates 3 weeks ago in reply to Dianne
 
1 person liked this.
Have you thoughr through the implications of a Republic? A President would be required, who would you choose from our current crop of politicians? a radical change would require a new breed of politician uninfluenced by their current allegencies, they might then be in a position to implement the equal society to which you aspire. You may be thinking of the American system but there is inequality in their system also.
Our system of Royal Perogative protects us in difficult times from unsuitable politicians,being able in extremis to dissolve parliament. I do hope that we do not experience a Republic in this country,

Ian Campbell 2 weeks ago in reply to bryanyates
 
1 person liked this.
There is a way that we could have the benefits of a republic while retaining the monarchy. If we have four domestic parliaments in the UK, that is an English Parliament alongside the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly of Wales and NI Assembly, we would have a much smaller British government and it would be possible to adopt American-style separation of powers, whereby the British PM would elected by the people of all four countries but he or she and the Cabinet members would not sit in Parliament, which would be a legislature like the US Congress. The monarch could remain as Head of State while the PM is in effect Chief Executive.

Ian Campbell 2 weeks ago

1 person liked this.
Although the constituent UK nations do not have written constitutions, the UK already does. The Acts of Union, passed the English & Scottish Parliaments in 1707, and the Treaty of Union between them, created the United Kingdom of Great Britain. It rescinded all previous constitutional legislation that conflicted with the Treaty and laid down the principles for the equal treatment of people throughout the new country. It repays reading even today,

bryanyates 2 weeks ago in reply to Ian Campbell
 
1 person liked this.
Although the Constitution of 1709 may be the basis of our current system the various changes enacted during the past twelve years have distorted Its influence and the constitution should be re-written

Ian Campbell 2 weeks ago in reply to bryanyates

1 person liked this.
How would you do that, Bryan? The UK has no power to amend the Treaty. It can only be renegotiated by the two parties who drew it up, that is England and Scotland. Both sovereign parliiaments would have to be recalled. The present Scottish Parliament is not a sovereign parliament but a regional assembly acting under powers devolved (and reclaimable) by the UK Parliament.

bryanyates 2 weeks ago in reply to Ian Campbell
Ian, I accept that there is difficulty in changing the original treaty between Scotland and England, particularly in relation to the scottish devolved Parliament. During the past three centuaries changes in the law have been enacted in the Westminster Parliament and changes of statutes in council ,and a new constitution could be enacted by mutual agreement with Scotland in a similar form. I do hope that we can overcome the difficulties.

Ian Campbell 2 weeks ago in reply to bryanyates
 
1 person liked this.
It's still a problem, Bryan, because of course Scots sit in the Westminster Parliament, that is the Parliament of the UK. Negotiations would have to take place between the Scottish MPs at Westminster on the one hand and the English, Welsh & N Irish at Westminster on the other. Alternatively, the Scottish MPs would have to withdraw and allow the Scottish Parliament to negotiate with the UK Parliament, the problem then being that the Scottish Parliament is not a sovereign parliament. There is therefore no clear mechanism for revising the Treaty of Union, because it was never meant to be revised. If the Treaty is repealed, the UK ceases to exist and the English and Scottish Parliaments would have to be recalled to negotiate a new Treaty.

Tony Barker 2 weeks ago
 
1 person liked this.
The EU constitution has 300 pages and starts with "the EU..." and is about protecting the "European State"
The American Constitution starts "The American people..." protecting the citizens and is on one page.
A British Constitution should be about protecting the British citizen foremost and taking precedence over all new laws and European intervention, about retaining our own sovereignty and regaining lost powers of an elected British Government and to remember our Government work for us.

caritasreipublicae 2 weeks ago
I actually favour a written Constitution for an independent Scotland, but as that is not an option, count me in as a supporter of a written Constitution for the UK - with provision made in that Constitution for the holding of referendums on the independence of its constituent nations.

Also, let's not bother with an old fashioned nineteenth century Crown-centric Constitution (like those of Canada and Australia). I think the Spanish Constitution would, on the whole, be a reasonable model.

openminds 1 week ago
tony blair did not want a written constitution, because as it appears that dictatorship was more his cup of tea. this shows to the people that there is a fundamental flaw and a need to have their bill of rights written and agreed by referendum, prior to the election of any party, and only when they will declare to serve the people. .They can be deselected by the people, if they fail act on their behalf.

Salsulmer 1 week ago
I agree with all points except that which deals with patriotism and allegiance. Who are 'We, the people' have allegiance to, but each other? Further, doesn't each other extend beyond the political boundaries of this island? 
The problem with nationalism and patriotism is that one 'psychological' defines one's place of habitation/origin at odds with another's. This includes culture, tradition, language, image, behaviour and anything else we conditionally identify with. 
This is inherently the first step towards conflict. This is because Nationalism and patriotism comes with the sense of ownership of a particular to the neglect of the whole and/or the truth in fact. 
As long as this thinking/perceiving is perpetuated and encouraged, conflict and eventually war will always be an inevitability There is really only 'ours'. Not yours against mine.
With that understanding comes with it the necessity for responsibility to keep oneself and others well, regardless of origin. 
This is not homogenisation, on the contrary, it is not letting the differences undermine our fundamental understanding of being human and our relationships to not breed destructive patterns of behaviour.
To know one's rights as a human being in schools and for immigrants, how it effects you and how you can affect it, I am all for, as long as it doesn't harbour this unnecessary sense of patriotism/nationalism for reasons formerly expressed.

John Salter 5 days ago
A written constitution would enable the UK to stress that our constitution would take precedence over any European or other legislation as regards the right and obligations of British Citizens. France and Germany both manage to avoid adherence to the worst excesses of the European Courts and so why shouldn't we. Unjustified extradition of UK citizens to other states could also be curtailed. The UK consitution should be supreme as regards UK jurisdiction over its own citizens.

Anthony 4 days ago

Can someone let me know WHO would write the constitution. What mandate would they have? To whom would they be responsible for agreeing the constitution before it's set in stone? What capability would be needed by those agreeing the constitution?

I agree government reform is essential - but who would we trust to do it?

stan69 3 days ago
This is a noble suggestion, but unfortunately, like many of the proposals on here, it is a secondary concern to the much more pressing issue of reforming our currently totally undemocratic system of government. Apart from anything else, it won't happen UNTIL that system is reformed.

The same is true of the PR proposal. Gordon Brown is only talking about AV because he knows the game is up and that he needs to appear as a reformist to stand any chance of being re-elected. In reality, neither Labour or the Tories will ever voluntarily dismantle FPTP, it is how they stay on top.

The only way that any of the proposals currently in the top 5 would ever stand a chance of becoming a reality, would be after the introduction of a None Of The Above box on the ballot paper. There is an awful lot of ignorance flying around on this site about what NOTA is and how it would work. The truth is, it is THE starting point for dismantling our undemocratic system and taking the power back. The 'how's' and 'why's' are covered in depth on the NOTA-UK website: http://www.nota-uk.org

If the None Of The Above proposal doesn't make the top 5, it will be a tragedy for the fight for true democracy. Without NOTA in place, all the rest is largely unachievable.

So please vote for NOTA proposal, otherwise this noble POWER2010 mission is in danger of being all for nought: http://www.power2010.org.uk/votes/entry/a-none-...

Thanks for reading.

Cw2w 4 days ago

From Twitter via BackType
One more retweet from Beulahcd
just voted for a written constitution to make the #POWER2010 Election Pledge, do the same athttp://tinyurl.com/yb3obdv

heddgwynfor 4 days ago

From Twitter via BackType

A Written Constitution | POWER 2010 - http://goo.gl/8mf3

jamesgraham 1 month ago

From Twitter via BackType

I've voted for "A written constitution" on #POWER2010:http://www.power2010.org.uk/votes/entry/a-written-constitution

confirmordeny 1 month ago

From Twitter via BackType
One more retweet from g_daddy
RT @RepublicStaff: Vote for a written constitution http://bit.ly/6BOPSH

RepublicStaff 1 month ago

From Twitter via BackType

Vote for a written constitution http://bit.ly/6BOPSH